I had just gotten done answering a twit at Mother Jones who declared that "religion poison's everything" when I found a link to this story in my e-mail.
Tutu: Climate Crisis Demands 'Anti-Apartheid-Style Boycott' of Fossil Fuel Industry Nobel laureate says 'people of conscience' must break ties with oil and gas companies that are destroying planet's future
Which led to Archbishop Desmond Tutu's piece in The Guardian.
Twenty-five years ago people could be excused for not knowing much, or doing much, about climate change. Today we have no excuse. No more can it be dismissed as science fiction; we are already feeling the effects.
This is why, no matter where you live, it is appalling that the US is debating whether to approve a massive pipeline transporting 830,000 barrels of the world's dirtiest oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Producing and transporting this quantity of oil, via the Keystone XL pipeline, could increase Canada's carbon emissions by over 30%.
If the negative impacts of the pipeline would affect only Canada and the US, we could say good luck to them. But it will affect the whole world, our shared world, the only world we have. We don't have much time.
This week in Berlin, scientists and public representatives have been weighing up radical options for curbing emissions contained in the third report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The bottom line is that we have 15 years to take the necessary steps. The horse may not have bolted, but it's well on its way through the stable door.
Who can stop it? Well, we can, you and I. And it is not just that we can stop it, we have a responsibility to do so. It is a responsibility that begins with God commanding the first human inhabitants of the garden of Eden "to till it and keep it". To keep it; not to abuse it, not to destroy it.
Which is one of only scores and hundreds of similar examples of moral clarity issuing forth from those minds "poisoned by religion". The reason more people aren't aware of them is that they are purposely and consciously disappeared by the American media and corporate media in other places.
That it is The Guardian that carried this piece is significant, if they cared to, various media outlets of the left could be filled with similar calls from religious figures exhorting people to do the right thing. That they don't choose to is a different form of disappearing the religious left for reasons other than that they disagree on these issues. The fact is, they don't disagree on these issues and the fact is that, as the enormously positive reaction to Pope Francis shows, the world is starving for that kind of religious advocacy for justice, for the environment. The secular advocacy for that has not been notably successful and there is no reason to expect it will succeed any more in the future than it has now. I have noted before that religion provides people with a reason to perform some measure of self-sacrifice for reasons of morality that atheism doesn't provide.
The question is if the leftist media will service the ideological hatred of the anti-religious fragment of the left or if it will serve the agenda of the left by strengthening the most important force available to the left helping to strengthen and channel the moral convictions of the majority of people on the left into effective action.
Desmond Tutu is not a "religious figure." MLK is not a "religious figure."
ReplyDeleteNo one in American public life is a "religious figure" unless they head a very conservative mega church and are themselves extremely conservative. So Jeremiah Wright is not a "religious figure" because he headed a "liberal" mega-church, and therefore he was dangerous for...well, for not being a religious figure who talked about God making you rich and God hating abortion and evolution.
Desmond Tutu is a political figure because: South Africa. MLK is a political figure because he "had a dream" and Birmingham. If the Pope is a religious figure he's dangerously crazy (Benedict) or he's not a religious figure, he's just a genuinely nice guy (Francis).
The religious discussion in this country, the public discussion, I should say, is conducted in such narrow parameters religion isn't discussed at all. It is either wholly ignored, deemed too dangerous for public consumption (Jeremiah Wright), or considered mindless superstition of the sort that would have been condemned by Calvin and Cotton Mather.
I used to think ignorance feeds itself, but this kind of ignorance is flat out willful. You can get better discussions of Christian ideals in the op-ed pages of the Guardian (no, seriously). You can't get anything but Falwell-style blather in American papers, to the extent the NYT and the New Yorker won't touch religion with a club, in articles or opinion pieces. If they do, it's invariably the Christianity of Joel Osteen or Mars Hill or Pat Robertson.
None of whom represent, speak for, or are members of, the largest mainline Christian denominations in the country. The UCC regularly releases press statements on topics of the day. They've been opposed to "Chief Wahoo" and the Redskins for decades. Has anybody ever noticed? Is it the UCC's fault no media outlet will even report their concerns?
I refuse to get involved in the comments, or even post about it at my blog (i'm sick to death of the subject), but Andrew O'Hehir at Salon has written a very good article about fundamentalism and New Atheism, in which he excoriates Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins, as well as the media which lets them pretend there are only two sides to the debate, and both are equally well-informed and thoughtful.
ReplyDeletePredictably, the monkeys in the comments are flinging poo because the sainted Dawkins is not recognized as a demi-god. O'Hehir points out Dawkins doesn't know a damned thing about religion; the commenters point out O'Hehir has failed to quote a thing Dawkins says that is wrong.
And 'round and 'round it goes.
I won't even poke a stick in that hornet's nest. It ain't worth it O'Hehir writes a thoughtful piece inviting them to reflect on the subject thoughtfully; they respond with screeching and throwing urine around.
Okay, I lied. I left two comments. I couldn't resist. But I ain't waitin' around to see what the crowd thinks of it. They'll be demanding Pilate release Barabbas before too long....
You don't have to post this. I meant to leave you the link for that Salon article. My apologies; and here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/america_stupidly_stuck_between_religion_and_science/